My need and of course the needs of many other people with severe disabilities for the NDIS

I look back on the last five years and come to a sad conclusion. For some considerable time, I have been losing control of my movements. But from July 2011 there has occurred a progressive loss of control that is potentially more fundamental than the biological loss of muscular power. It has not been physiological so much as social and personal. What am I referring to? July 2011, five years ago, was when I move into a group-home for people with high support needs.

The move came about after being encouraged by various people to enter this group home. This happened because the Department of Human Services, as it was then known, could not allocate an extra 3 hours per day that were necessary for me to work safely and productively during the day in my own residence.

At no stage was the kind of loss of control that I have subsequently experienced – in a personal and social sense – brought to my attention by those who were encouraging me to make this decision, not least those in charge of the facility in which I have subsequently found myself. The "movers and the shakers" in disability care, those who are stakeholders in the disability care industry, seek to find a solution that is cheap and safe, rather than one in which a flexible supporting regime can provide the resident with support that maintains the good things that have previously been a part of a life already constrained.

But hopefully this is all only confirmation of how much better life could be under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The NDIS has a social platform that rests on the provision of control, social empowerment and understanding.

Please do not mistake the issue here. It has nothing to do with how my views might be perceived and is all about the individuality of persons living with disability. We are, after all, those who share a diverse humanity, and it may only be our physical or intellectual disability that separates us on some evaluations from a society's so-called norms. What I am concerned about is addressing situations that impede a person's control of life. I am wanting to look at theories that are capable of addressing the manner in which people's freedom is constrained. Disabled persons are only a special case of persons enduring such unrecognised social constraint.

The NDIS scheme is based on the view that control and choice about funding provided to people will be individually driven. This will mean an important shift in the power away from the government and service providers and into the hands of people with disabilities themselves and, of course, their families.

Self-managed funding gives the flexibility in the choice of support workers, negotiation of salary, as well as the hours and kind of work that needs to be undertaken. As hours of duty and pay rates become more flexible, this may be more attractive to support workers as well. As an Employer of your own support workers, you'll need to be familiar with a range of things, such as WorkCover and taxation laws. This can be complicated and may mean that you need to ensure you comply with legal, financial and human resource obligations as well as maintaining records about your employees.

The payments for the NDIS are based on three different support categories:

CORE – A support that enables a participant to complete activities of daily living and enables them to work towards their goals and meet their objectives.

CAPITAL – An investment, such as assistive technologies, equipment and home or vehicle modifications, funding for capital costs (e.g. to pay for Specialist Disability Accommodation).

CAPACITY BUILDING - A support that enables a participant to build their independence and skills.

Therefore, a large amount of money is put into the training of disability professionals. But there is little credit given to the ability of people with disabilities, who often act in management roles, for the day-to-day management of their home-based support workers or the management of disability professionals. The people being served here are in fact the front line trainers.

Self-managed support practices the belief that the people being supported are, more often than not, the best teachers regarding the support they need and how it can be delivered. Self managed is to ensure that financial control of the supports being used is in the hands of persons with disabilities, or the person's family or a trustee. Therefore social participation in this instance provides individual control and empowerment.

To be a self-manager of your funding is not the only way that you can gain choice and control in the scheme. Every participant of the NDIS has the choice and control over how their funds are managed, including who provides their supports and how these supports are carried out. This is irrespective of whether or not they choose to self-manage their own funds.

To be flexible in this way is vital especially for those who are not capable of managing their own funds or for those who choose not to. Participants with an intellectual disability or with severe psychosocial disability, for example, may find difficulty in managing the specific duties pertaining to the financial side of their plan. Having your funding managed by agencies such as the Plan Management Agency – not the service provider – is just as important as the choice to self-manage. Moreover, parts of the plan may be managed in different ways based on the needs of the individual.

The NDIS looks to provide social inclusion and this is provided through an insurance scheme, which has as its goal to provide better outcomes for people with disabilities. It is able to provide for insurance instead of welfare. That is, it looks to enhance opportunities instead of looking solely and abstractly at the first hand obvious needs. With such a utilitarian outlook many welfare recipients will be stereotyped.

The NDIS is structured on the insurance model. This is to ensure social programs are met and empowerment is encouraged. This is quite different from the welfare provision model, and in opposition to its short term needs-based structure.

The insurance scheme approach to supporting people is different. Built into its approach is a prudential insurance governance cycle which deals with a set of forecasts of what the NDIS will cost. For this, data will be collected that will validate or change those forecasts.

Presently, there is more data on people with disabilities so they are able to assess their needs better. And so, they will be able to demonstrate the most effective supports for them and will be able to assess if the outcomes differ from expectations resulting from the services provided. They can then make changes accordingly. Insurance schemes are data driven processes. This means that over time it will lead to better, more cost-effective outcomes for people with disabilities and their families.

Welfare schemes aim to minimise costs over very short periods of time whereas insurance schemes minimise costs and maximise opportunities over a person's lifetime and are more aligned to their individual needs. Therefore, NDIS will reap better outcomes as they invest in independence and participation of individuals and the nurturing relationships of their families and loved ones. It also holds out the prospect of the nurturing of these vital relationships by all involved.

In addition to being data driven they invest in research, for example, accident compensation schemes have been researched thoroughly. Insurance companies have been important sources of social change as it gives the wider community the opportunity to pool in their money towards the amelioration of the lifestyle of people with disabilities. And so, this will ultimately lead to greater social outcomes including a reduction in attitudes based on stereotypes.